The art of Diplomacy...

[denverpilot]

... is saying "Nice Doggy"...

http://www.aopa.org/newsroom/newsitems/releases/2011/11-1-030.html

... while you're reaching for a rock ...

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articl...lifies_aircraft_praises_ga_manufacturers.html

Before this heads off into SZ... which it probably will, even though I think politicians in general are scum, and this could have happened under any Party or Politician's watch...

Is this the death knell for Wichita? Seriously. They're teetering on the brink already, and this just seems like a big shove over the cliff to me, at the wrong time.

How can this possibly be good for anywhere but Washington, D.C.? They're willing to spend $300B, twice... on banks and banking insurers... but they go after Wichita like this?

Seems so very wrong to me in so many ways... no matter what Party or Politician is doing it...

Move 'er to SZ if you must -- I'm actually not being Partisan here on this one. This one is a strike right to the heart of GA, since most of us fly aircraft who's parent companies rely on jet sales to even keep the lights on in the areas of the hangars that make our parts for our 35 year old birds... those of us who fly birds who even HAVE a manufacturer behind them anymore, that is.

 

[Mike_Flys]

Nate I came to look when I saw the subject (Thought you were plugging my wife's book LOL)

Very depressing. I'm so sick of this administration.

Mike

 

[ScottM]

Nate I came to look when I saw the subject (Thought you were plugging my wife's book LOL)

Very depressing. I'm so sick of this administration.

Mike

Yeah we would be better off with the one like we had before that wanted to go to a user fee model for us in addition to our fuel taxes.

Face it, when it comes to aviation the only people being served by the government are the large commercial carriers. Even then they are not getting all that and a bag of chips too.

 

[denverpilot]

Yeah we would be better off with the one like we had before that wanted to go to a user fee model for us in addition to our fuel taxes.

Face it, when it comes to aviation the only people being served by the government are the large commercial carriers. Even then they are not getting all that and a bag of chips too.

User fees were ugly, definitely. We've all talked to the three pilots left in Europe doing Instrument ratings about their $300 instrument approaches.

Europeans were driven to the LSA sized day-only VFR aircraft by that and lots of other factors.

Now we're building and buying them.

I agree with you on the commercial carriers. If they and their Unions have no leverage with Washington, no one in Aviation does.

Boeing gets to sell a few 757s and 737s to haul Congresscritters around, but that's about it for here. The 787's are headed to Asia. I saw the entire Everitt ramp full of ASA livery with my own eyes. Our companies wouldn't take a chance on the aircraft and got much later and far fewer slots on the production schedule.

Cirrus is now Chinese-funded.

Cessna is building Skycatchers in China and other stuff in Mexico. A ton of their new piston single sales were to CAP.

Teledyne-Continental... Chinese investors.

Mooney and Piper have been on death's doorstep for years.

Nobody is making light twins here anymore.

Radical cost-cutting slash and burn Boomer style activist investors are now looking at Textron. I bet they buy, slash, burn, and sell to the Chinese...

Cessna's gone if Textron takes the investor's offer. My prediction anyway.

I remember when I was young, people hopping up and down angry that Japan was going to kill Detroit. It came true. They built plants here, sure... But Detroit's down to whoever leaves last should turn out the lights.

China didn't even bother competing with Kansas, they just bought them outright.

Tony may be the smartest one of us all. Those of us fully-addicted aviators may be turning to soaring soon as the only way to get our fix affordably. He knows how to rebuild 'em and fly 'em!

Maybe he'll need an IT guy who would be willing to work for tows. Heh. TonysGliderEmporium.com has a nice ring to it, no? The next Van Bortel's?

If the gubmint leaves me enough, I'll even buy him lunch once in a while.

I hate knowing I'm throwing good money after bad into the Cessna, but I'm committed. Seeing Henning put his 310 up for sale this week crushed my spirit. To build a boat, Henning? Really? Sigh.

Ahh, but I know he's right. That's what kills me. Keeping a 21 gal/Hr bird fed isn't easy. Buying it a couple of O-470's is downright painful, I'm sure.

You know what I really don't get? Wasn't there "big news" in Aviation that depreciation was extended or something like that for new business aircraft just last year by the same Administration? Kinda an olive branch to aviation after the whole cash for klunkers fiasco?

That whole "nice doggie" thing again... Reaching for the rock.

I really don't care if it's a Democan or a Republicrat doing this. It's just wrong.

Definitely going flying this weekend. That's all I know. Do it while I still can afford it and get parts and evil non-greenie 100LL for the ol' girl. At least mine'll fly on UL...

Totally bummed. Can't believe we elected someone who'd go directly after the last remaining big manufacturing in Kansas. Don't care which Party he's from at all in this case.

He's taking pot-shots with a high power rifle and a scope at my neighbors.

 

[Bob Noel]

Are newer large aircraft more fuel-efficient than older models?

If so, couldn't this be considered an investment of sorts?

Note that I don't fly anything larger than my cherokee 140, I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

[wabower]

Yes. Each new model is better than the prior version.

Are newer large aircraft more fuel-efficient than older models?

If so, couldn't this be considered an investment of sorts?

Note that I don't fly anything larger than my cherokee 140, I don't have a dog in this fight.

All aspects of the new planes are better. Design, efficiency, capability, maintainability, accessibility, etc. And the US is the world market leader in both production and purchase. Doofus-in-chief seems hell-bent to fix that for us.

 

[wsuffa]

... is saying "Nice Doggy"...

http://www.aopa.org/newsroom/newsitems/releases/2011/11-1-030.html

... while you're reaching for a rock ...

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articl...lifies_aircraft_praises_ga_manufacturers.html

Before this heads off into SZ... which it probably will, even though I think politicians in general are scum, and this could have happened under any Party or Politician's watch...

Is this the death knell for Wichita? Seriously. They're teetering on the brink already, and this just seems like a big shove over the cliff to me, at the wrong time.

How can this possibly be good for anywhere but Washington, D.C.? They're willing to spend $300B, twice... on banks and banking insurers... but they go after Wichita like this?

Seems so very wrong to me in so many ways... no matter what Party or Politician is doing it...

Move 'er to SZ if you must -- I'm actually not being Partisan here on this one. This one is a strike right to the heart of GA, since most of us fly aircraft who's parent companies rely on jet sales to even keep the lights on in the areas of the hangars that make our parts for our 35 year old birds... those of us who fly birds who even HAVE a manufacturer behind them anymore, that is.

Clearly you're too rich, like the rest of GA users, and deserve to pay more so politicians can dole it out & get re-elected.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

A short-sighted solution with no consideration of the long term effects. Typical politics.

 

[steingar]

I think user fees have been promoted by every President since Eisenhower.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I have yet to hear from anyone a cogent argument as to why Part 91 aircraft should be depreciated over 5 years, and part 135 aircraft should be depreciated over 7. Or why Pt 91 aircraft should be 5 year property, over other 7 year property that has much higher gross domestic sales and employ more people in the US.

Educate me.

 

[silver-eagle]

I think user fees have been promoted by every President since Eisenhower.

User fees exist and always have. Think toll booths. The government can't stay within their budget so additional revenue streams have to be introduced. All user fees are are a way to tax a target population without having to get congress to approve the amount. Follow the money. Most times it is straight to the general fund.
But to quote Obama "... pilots can afford it".
Until the new fee directly affects you (the general public), there's likely to be no opposition.
As a business, the government would have filed for bancruptcy decades ago. Maybe they are waiting for their own bailout. Oh yeah, they all ready have it. Deficit spending!

 

[rpadula]

Is this the death knell for Wichita? Seriously. They're teetering on the brink already, and this just seems like a big shove over the cliff to me, at the wrong time.

No. The President bitching and moaning about private jets isn't going to kill the industry. By arguing about this, we're falling for stupid debate tricks.

 

[rpadula]

I have yet to hear from anyone a cogent argument as to why Part 91 aircraft should be depreciated over 5 years, and part 135 aircraft should be depreciated over 7. Or why Pt 91 aircraft should be 5 year property, over other 7 year property that has much higher gross domestic sales and employ more people in the US.

Educate me.

I thought we're under some bonus accelerated depreciation schedule now? What's it, an extra 50% in the first year?

I'd like to know: does it really matter? The truth is, depreciation is tax deferment, not avoidance. You'll have to pay tax at recapture time when the jet is sold, so what's the big deal?

 

[Henning]

I hate knowing I'm throwing good money after bad into the Cessna, but I'm committed. Seeing Henning put his 310 up for sale this week crushed my spirit. To build a boat, Henning? Really? Sigh.

Ahh, but I know he's right. That's what kills me. Keeping a 21 gal/Hr bird fed isn't easy. Buying it a couple of O-470's is downright painful, I'm sure.

Not to worry, the boat building exercise is a scale proof of concept demonstrator to incite the sale of a much larger boat. It's straight up a business investment and has nothing to do with the cost or negative aspects of aviation.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I'd like to know: does it really matter? The truth is, depreciation is tax deferment, not avoidance. You'll have to pay tax at recapture time when the jet is sold, so what's the big deal?

Exactly. It's a cash flow issue.
The breathlessness of both sides over this issue is, well, breathtaking.

 

[MBDiagMan]

IMHO the clamp down on Corporate Jet mfg.s' by this administration is part of their class warfare campaign. GA is caught in the middle, or maybe not in the middle rather the nail taking the pounding from the political hammer.

Doc

 

[Everskyward]

I thought we're under some bonus accelerated depreciation schedule now? What's it, an extra 50% in the first year?

According to this it's 100% for 2011 and 50% in 2012.

Economic Stimulus Incentives in 2010 & 2011 Tax Relief Act Retroactive to September 9, 2010

New aircraft purchases and new equipment purchases for used aircraft can now be expensed in the year of purchase through December 31, 2011. For 2012, 100% bonus depreciation returns to 50% bonus until it expires on January 1, 2013.

http://www.advocatetax.com/3680/bonus-depreciation-extended-–-increased-to-100-through-2011/

I'd like to know: does it really matter? The truth is, depreciation is tax deferment, not avoidance. You'll have to pay tax at recapture time when the jet is sold, so what's the big deal?

I'm curious about that too. I think it's way too much pandering by the President but I don't know how much it will really affect companies' decisions. To me, it seems like an airplane is something you can either justify or you can't depending on your company's travel needs and you shouldn't be depending on the depreciation schedule to make it affordable.

 

[wsuffa]

I thought we're under some bonus accelerated depreciation schedule now? What's it, an extra 50% in the first year?

I'd like to know: does it really matter? The truth is, depreciation is tax deferment, not avoidance. You'll have to pay tax at recapture time when the jet is sold, so what's the big deal?

Well, sorta. Bonus depreciation just moves the depreciation expense earlier. recapture is essentially the difference between regular depreciation schedule and the accelerated schedule. So yes, it's deferred taxes if you sell before the end of the asset life.... different story if you sell after the asset is depreciated according to ordinary schedule.

There's also step-up basis, and other stuff that goes on. Which is why good tax accountants are highly valued.

To me, it seems like an airplane is something you can either justify or you can't depending on your company's travel needs and you shouldn't be depending on the depreciation schedule to make it affordable.

Agree that you should justify it based on travel needs, but depreciation can make a difference in whether you buy or lease and what price-point makes sense. Bonus depreciation can give you reason to "buy now" as opposed to later, which is why it's used as an economic stimulus. If you can offset some taxes now, then presumably you have additional cash to invest in other stuff... like employees or large capital goods. Or you can just pay it out as dividends.

It's like the home mortgage interest deduction, the first-time-homebuyer tax credit, "cash for clunkers", etc.

 

[Everskyward]

Bonus depreciation can give you reason to "buy now" as opposed to later, which is why it's used as an economic stimulus. If you can offset some taxes now, then presumably you have additional cash to invest in other stuff... like employees or large capital goods. Or you can just pay it out as dividends.

It's like the home mortgage interest deduction, the first-time-homebuyer tax credit, "cash for clunkers", etc.

Interesting that all those incentives encourage some people and companies to overbuy. I see it as somewhat of a double-edged sword. I do agree that there is way too much pandering and politics involved, though.

 

[rpadula]

Interesting that all those incentives encourage some people and companies to overbuy. I see it as somewhat of a double-edged sword. I do agree that there is way too much pandering and politics involved, though.

Which is why I don't think we should be dicking with this stuff via the tax code.

 

[denverpilot]

Not to worry, the boat building exercise is a scale proof of concept demonstrator to incite the sale of a much larger boat. It's straight up a business investment and has nothing to do with the cost or negative aspects of aviation.

Good to know.

Good luck on your endeavor.